Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 250 Filed 07/31/23 Page 1 of 5 WILMERHALE July 31, 2023 Felicia H. Ellsworth By ECF +1 617 526 6687 (0 •1 617 526 5000 (I) felicatellswonnewilmernale.com Hon. Jed S. Rakoff United States District Court Southern District of New York Daniel Moynihan United States Courthouse 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007-1312 Re: Jane Doe I v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. James E. Staley, 22-cv-10019 (S.D.N.Y.) — Opposition to Third-Party Defendant James Staley's Letter Alleging Waiver Dear Judge Rakoff: JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. ("JPMC") filed a third-party complaint against former employee James Staley earlier this year after lawsuits sought to impose liability on the bank due to Mr. Staley's alleged personal misconduct and knowledge of Epstein's misconduct derived from his deep personal friendship with Epstein, which he failed to disclose to JPMC. In its case against Mr. Staley, JPMC alleged, inter alia, claims for indemnity and contribution. See Jane Doe 1 v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, M.A., 22-cv-10019, Dkt. 59.1 Since that time, JPMC entered a settlement, preliminarily approved by this Court, to resolve this litigation, but maintains that Mr. Staley is responsible for that settlement amount. Mr. Staley, in a third misguided effort to suggest a privilege waiver by JPMC,2 now claims that, by maintaining its claim against Mr. Staley while settling the claims brought by the class, JPMC waived privilege related to its settlement. This argument is legally flawed and factually baseless, and this effort to invade JPMC's privilege fails just like the prior two. After JPMC's settlement with the Doe class was announced, Mr. Staley asked the Court to exclude the settlement amount as damages (denied), extend fact discovery by 60 days (denied), or for discovery into the "reasonableness" and "causation" of the settlement. See July 7, 2023, Minute Entry. He was granted limited discovery, id., which JPMC has produced.; In his telephone application for this d